During my time in the United States Navy I witness many situations in which those in positions of leadership used appropriate leadership styles that were ideal for the characteristics of followers and the goals of the mission. (Northouse, 2016, p.115) Being deployed for 9-months where thousands of young sailors are contained in a very close proximity to one another it was critical that leaders matched their behaviors to the follower’s characteristics in order to affect the motivation of the followers in their everyday tasks that were always changing. The objective of the path-goal theory outlined by Northouse (2016) identifies that the being directive, supportive, participative and achievement oriented are all behaviors that can be tailored to the characteristics of the followers and the tasks within a given situation to provide an ideal level of follower motivation to complete the goals outlined by an organization. (p.116) Looking back on my time in the Navy I will provide an example of my supervisor was able to use supportive behaviors to his followers keeping in mind their characteristics and the nature of the tasks required to be completed by those within the engineering department.
The method of the leadership Path-Goal Theory is outlined in the Figure 6.2, from Northouse (2016, p.117) which shows the relationship between leader behaviors, and follower as well as task characteristics to ultimately motivate followers to achieve the end goal. This method was utilized by the superiors in my engineering department. Over different instances and scenarios within my department our leaders made the decision of what types of behaviors to exhibit dependent upon which follower they were working with and the job that was to be completed.
My supervisors title was Chief Petty Officer Machinist Mate Harms (MMC Harms). MMC Harms was responsible for 8 junior sailors including myself. The group of individuals that reported to MMC Harms ranged from Fireman (E-3) all the way to a Petty Officer First Class (E-6). It was the responsibility of our chief to help provide us junior sailors with the best leadership behavior to help motivate us in a given situation. I wanted to be a part of something bigger than myself. I was looking to feel as though I was a part of a team; a highly functioning member of the United States Navy as an auxiliary mechanic.
Shortly after arriving on board the USS John C. Stennis I was personally faced with an obstacle. I was far away from home in the Persian Gulf, I was not around anyone familiar, and I was being hazed by members within my department. Pershing (2006) indicates that hazing in the military is viewed as a method of indoctrination of newer members. That this form of misconduct is viewed by those in the military as a means to create, “comrade and cohesion” (Pershing, 2006, p.4). Instead what ended up occurring was that as a follower I felt inferior to the others within my team. My motivation level was diminishing and I was beginning to become unsatisfied in the tasks that were offered to me by my peers. I was made to feel inferior by others and needed support from my supervisor.
The ability to have open communication with my supervisor about the obstacles I was facing was not easy for me to work through. However, MMC Harms was a well-trained experienced salty sailor. He knew what type of leadership behavior he needed to offer during this challenge for myself and the other members of my team. (Carlson, 2003) In order to enable me to become more motivated in my work and was able to remove the obstacle of being subjected to hazing which is strictly against Navy policy. He instructed that I be given jobs that would allow for a sense of purpose. Something that would offer me with a challenge and aid in my ability to advance in my career which would led to my level of motivation to become vastly elevated in a very short period of time.
In situations such as the one I have described above it can be difficult for leaders to understand which type of leadership behavior that would best fit the needs of their subordinates and the tasks to be completed. My supervisor MMC Harms was one of the best that I had during my time in the Navy due largely in part to his ability to be aware of a given task and followers characteristics and to know which type of behavior to use.
References
Carlson, A. (2003) Salt-less sailors seasoned at sea. USS Kitty Hawk Public Affairs. Retrieved June 14, 2018 from http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=10115
Northouse, P. G. (2016) Leadership: theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Pershing, J. L. (2006) Men and women’s experience with hazing in a male-dominated elite military institution. Men and Masculinities, 8(4), 470-492. doi: 10.1177/1097184X05277411
tvb5168 says
Hi Abigail,
It’s good to know that you had someone like MMC Harms was a great leader by helping you on your career path in the military. It seemed like he worked very well with you to make sure your path was free of obstacles and helped you around the ones he knew you would encounter along the way.
Although you talk about the path-goal theory, your situation sounds also very similar to the situational approach. As MMC Harms is your leader, he seemed to show leaders skills that had directive and supportive behaviors. According to Northouse, leadership styles can be broken down into four categories; directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating.(Northouse, 2016) MMC Harms used all four of these categories with you on your career path in the military.
Bibliography
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership. Los Angeles: Sage.
Adam John Swain says
Abigail,
I was drawn into your post because, even though I’m a Chief, I’m not blind to the fact that some are better than others. In your situation, it seemed like MMC Harms was also being a transformational leader. My blog post was on this approach and I queued in on a few of your statements, beginning with the title of your post. By feeling that he is “the best Chief in the Navy” (Brock, 2018), it seems to me that he motivated you through inspiration. Northouse (2016) defines inspirational motivation as, “leaders who communicate high expectations to followers, inspiring them through motivation to become committed to and a part of the shared vision in the organization” (pg. 169). By giving you duties that help to fulfill your sense of purpose and to build your level of motivation, he inspired you to feel like you were a part of something bigger.
Intellectual stimulation, “challenges a follower’s beliefs and values as well as those of the leader and organization” (Northouse, 2016, pg. 169). Your being hazed while underway created, as you stated, a sense of inferiority that resulted in decreased motivation. By taking on challenging assignments, not only did you start to feel more motivated but likely felt more of a part of team. You challenged your thought process on where you stand by taking on difficult duties and you ended up benefitting from it.
The final part I’d like to bring to you is the individualized consideration. MMC was “representative of leaders who provide a supportive climate in which they listen carefully to the individual needs of followers” (Northouse 2016, pg. 169). In other words, he didn’t treat you as if you were another person with a standard problem that could be addressed with a standard response. He looked at you as an individual person with a unique need and provided you a tailored solution. By doing this, he likely built trust between you and him and helped to transition to you to a point where you felt like a contributing member of A-Gang.
In any sense and as a side-note, I’m glad that someone from the Mess was able to impact you to the point where you felt that you could write about them in a positive light. Chief’s are supposed to take that individualistic approach to supporting sailors and I’m glad that this worked out in your favor.
Thanks
Adam
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Brock, A. (2018, June 16). Home. Retrieved from http://sites.psu.edu/leadership/blog/